Reading the global tea leaves

What can we learn about the global economy from the world’s biggest corporation.

Where is the world economy heading? An interesting exercise by the website Business Insider looks at the earnings reports and announcements by some of the world’s biggest corporations to get an idea of the the direction of the global business world.

The results of Business Insider’s article are interesting and worthwhile of a closer look as we can see some real trends along with some risky bets by management who seem reluctant to acknowledge we’ve moved out of the 1980s.

China’s western water shortage

This is an interesting curve ball; one of the central planks of the China Cargo Cult that believes unfettered Chines growth will drive the world economy indefinitely is that the country’s inland provinces will grow in a similar pattern to that of the coastal provinces.

Anyone who has travelled in those provinces, particularly in the poorer Northern regions like Gansu, has seen first hand the serious erosion, desertification and water problems these areas face.

It shows the China story is not as simple as many of the cargo cultists believe.

Europe is not dead

Even in the darkest days there are opportunities for innovative organisations and regardless of what we think of McDonald’s products, they aren’t afraid to experiment and take risks.

McDonald’s move to “value meals” in Europe replicates what worked in the United States in both the 2001 and 2008 economic downturns. This appears to be working in Europe just as it did in North America.

We should also keep in mind that Europe is a diverse collection of cultures and economies so despair in Athens doesn’t necessarily mean pessimism in Arnhem.

The bottom of the US housing market

In his investor briefing, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon indicated the bank thought the US housing market is at the bottom subject to the American economy not going back into recession.

While it’s possible that the US housing market has bottomed, it’s highly unlikely we’re going to see the US housing market roar back to 2005 levels even if there is a US recovery so we shouldn’t be expecting hockey stick style growth in the US domestic sector driving the world economy as it did through the early 2000s.

Louis Vuitton confirms that the global market for ultra luxury goods is healthy

The entire luxury goods boom is a side effect of the massive amount of money pumped into to the world economy to deal with the 2008 economic crisis.

Like Macao casinos and Silicon Valley venture capital bubbles, this is transitory and at best a marginal influence on overall growth and employment.

It’s interesting how many presentations I’ve seen recently citing the luxury goods markets as evidence all is good in the world economy. This shows the desperation of those whose businesses rely on mindless consumerism.

China’s middle class will save us all

If you were searching for a corporate example of the economic cargo cult surrounding China, then Yum Foods would be one of the best.

The idea that China’s “consuming classes” will number half the nation’s population is some sort of economic Lake Wobegon, where everybody is above average.

Even if Yum’s prediction proves to be true, the nature of China’s economy and the nation’s stage of growth means consumption patterns of the country’s middle – or “consuming” – classes are going to more like those of Americans in 1912 rather than 2002 which undermines any business model based upon the late 20th Century’s profligate spending.

Businesses are once again investing in IT

Microsoft suprised us all last week with their profit results. Earnings from Windows, servers and office suites were all up on improved personal computer sales.

That businesses are investing in IT makes sense as one of the things that is cut early by organisations looking for savings is IT. That happened in 2009 in response to the economic crisis.

Even before the 2009 financial shock, businesses had been under-investing in IT partly because of Microsoft’s failure with the Vista operating system.

Now many businesses have decade old desktop computing systems and the pressures to upgrade are becoming intense.

The worry for Microsoft is Apple’s domination of mobile devices and the rise of cloud computing means that its not necessarily Microsoft will benefit from most of the IT investment.

Electricity prices will rise and low natural gas prices are unsustainable

Energy prices are a riddle within an enigma, however there’s certainly some distorting effects in these markets. CSX’s views on natural gas markets illustrate this.

We can expect more convulsions in energy prices as demand hinges on China, the US and European economic growth coupled with the threat of more conflict in Iran and Iraq.

Should China deliver the growth that the cargo cultists believe then energy prices will continue to climb, which may happen anyway.

The end of the telephone

Again Business Insider’s headline is a little misleading, as Verizon see the decline of the POTS – Plain Old Telephone System – networks that were designed around voice data and a switch to data based networks that don’t treat all traffic as information packets.

Data matters more than voice and we don’t want to be tied to a phone line.

That the telcos see mobile data as their main revenue drivers shouldn’t be a surprise as this has been the trend for two decades.

Consumers are borrowing again

This claim is a worry as it indicates some consumers – along with many lenders – are falling into the habits that nearly bought them unstuck in 2008.

A superficial view of the Amex announcement actually raises more questions than it answers and there’s a suspicion that the credit card provider is driving growth through special offers or reforming their excessive merchant charges.

Like JP Morgan, much of Amex’s optimism is based upon the US economy moving out of recession and American consumers resuming their credit binge. The latter may prove to be a bridge too far.

Winning in diverse European markets

Like McDonald’s, IBM sees plenty of opportunity in Europe and makes the point that, like Asia, the European markets are diverse.

IBM may turn out to be a more of a beneficiary of the increased IT spending that Microsoft is relying upon as Big Blue’s consulting services and cloud technologies are more attuned with where the enterprise computing market is going.

Also in an era of government austerity, IBM may be able to offer process savings to cash strapped agencies and authorities.

Asian consumers save the cigarette industry

There’s no doubt East Asian societies like a smoke so the idea that international tobacco brands see great opportunities in markets like South Korea, the Philippines and Indonesia shouldn’t be a surprise.

Interestingly China doesn’t feature in these projections as their market is largely closed to foreign manufacturers.

While the short term looks good for tobacco companies in East Asia, it’s difficult not to see that rising affluence starts to see public health and anti smoking campaigns similar to those in the West developing over the longer term.

Yahoo parties like it’s 1999

Web surfers want relevant content according to Yahoo’s management. Next month we’ll see these business giants claim social networks and cloud computing are the next big thing.

You can’t help but thing Yahoo’s management are very well qualified to tell us when horses have bolted and vanished over the horizon.

The problem for Yahoo is that customised content is expensive unless you’re going to “crowdsource” it with a social layer as Facebook does and Google is trying to do.

If Yahoo can pull something like this off – and there is no indication they can – then the business has a chance of surviving. Right now the smart money would be betting on the being broken up in the near future.

So where is the world economy going?

One unsurprising thing from these corporate projection is that some businesses are better prepared than others for the changes that are happening.

IBM and McDonald’s stand out as those prepared to innovate and change their business models to suit the prevailing situations.

Companies that believe the 1980s are just around the corner again seem to be the ones most vulnerable – its not surprising that its finance organisations like JP Morgan and Amex are betting the farm on continued massive growth in consumer debt.

The China Cargo Cultist are also vulnerable. If it turns out that Chinese growth – like US consumer spending in the 1980s – can’t go on forever then companies like Yum Foods are going to struggle with growth rates far lower than they expect.

One thing is clear, that there are a lot more nuances in the world’s economy that what you’d pick up from media headlines. The key for big and small entrepreneurs is figure out where these nuances present a business opportunity.

Black tea image courtesy of Zsuzsanna Kilian and SXC storck photos.

Inflating titles, inflated apirations

How job title inflation can affect an organisation

This story first appeared in Smart Company on 19 April 2012.

“She listed her job on LinkedIn as my ghostwriter,” reflected the journalist about his publishing business’ Gen-Y staff member.

The journalist’s lament reflects an unexpected corporate risk in social media; that of employees giving themselves grandiose and sometimes damaging job profiles.

Over the last 20 years, title inflation has been rife in the business world as corporations and government agencies doled out grandiose titles to soothe the egos of fragile management egos.

So it isn’t surprising that many of us succumb to the temptation to give ourselves a grand title online.

In the journo’s case a young graduate working as an editor in his publishing business listed herself as his ghostwriter, risking a huge dent to his credibility among other the lizards at the pub or the Quill Awards.

That business journalist is not alone, in the connected economy what would have been a quaint title on a business card or nameplate is now being advertised to the world.

Making matters worse, we now have tools like LinkedIn and other social media sites to check out a business’ background and who are the key contacts in an organisation.

So what your staff call themselves is now important. It can confuse customers, cause internal staff problems (“how come he’s an Executive Group General Manager?”), damage business reputations and quite often put an unexpected workload on a relatively junior employee.

In your social media policy – which is now essential in any business that employs staff – you need to clarify what titles your people can bestow upon themselves.

As well as making this clear to new staff, a regular web search on your business that includes all of the popular social media sites should be a regular task.

Just as economic inflation can hurt your business, so too can uncontrolled title inflation. Watch it isn’t affecting your operations.

Culture beats strategy

What does the executive car park tell us about a business’ management culture?

Writer and business consultant Joseph Michelli says”Culture beats strategy, in fact it eats it for breakfast and lunch”.

This was one of the key points in a recent webinar about online retailer Zappos and its customer service culture.

Joseph’s right, the culture of an organisation is the ultimate key to its success, if managers and staff work “according to the book” and declaring “it’s not my job” then you end up with a siloed organisation where management are more interesting in protecting and growing their empires over helping customers.

With Zappos it’s interesting how it appears easy the integration into Amazon’s ownership has gone and this is probably because both have service centric cultures.

Both companies seem to have avoided employing Bozos as Guy Kawasaki famously put it a few years ago.

Your parking lot’s “biorhythm” looks like this:

  • 8:00 am – 10:00 am–Japanese cars exceed German cars
  • 10:00 am – 5:00 pm–German cars exceed Japanese cars
  • 5:00 pm – 10:00 pm–Japanese cars exceed German cars

Guy’s German car observation is spot on. When I was running a service business, one measure I used for a potentially troublesome client was how many expensive German cars were in the executive parking spaces, it was usually a good indicator that an organisation’s leaders are more interested in management perks than maintaining their technology.

Another useful measure was where those cars are parked, a good indicator of management’s sense of entitlement is when executive parking spots are conveniently next to the building entrance or lift lobby while customers expected to find a spot anywhere within ten blocks.

It all comes down to culture and when management are more concerned about parking spots and staff about free lunches, you know you’re dealing with an organisation where the customer – or the shareholder – isn’t the priority.

Taking care of our own

Our governments can’t fix every problem or address our every need. We need to take matters into our own hands.

“The council ought to do something” growled a friend who’d been stuck in a peak hour traffic jam.

That innocuous comment illustrates the fundamental challenge facing the developed world’s politicians – that we expect our governments to fix every problem we encounter.

In the case of the local traffic jam, the cars creating gridlock are parents driving their children to two nearby large private schools.

Despite the problem being caused by the choices of individuals – those decisions to send their kids to those schools and to drive them there – our modern mindset is “the government aught to do something” rather than suggesting people should be making other choices.

Socialising the costs of our private decisions is one of the core beliefs of the 1980s mindset.

Eventually though the money had to run out as we started to expect governments to solve every problem.

We’re seeing the effects of this in the United States where local governments are now having pull up black top roads, close schools and renege on retirement funds as those costs become too great.

As a society we have to accept there are limits to what governments can do for us.

Increasingly as the world economy deleverages, tax revenues fall and the truth that a benign government can’t fulfill our every need starts to dawn on the populace, we’ll realise that expecting politicians and public servants to save us is a vain hope as they simply don’t have the resources.

Bruce Springsteen puts this well in his song “We Take Care Of Our Own.”

The truth today is the cargo cult mentality of waiting for governments or cashed up foreigners to come and save us is over.

We’re going to have to rely more on our own businesses, families and communities to support us in times of need.

The existing institutions of the corporate welfare state are beginning to collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.

Joe Hockey knows this, but as a paid-up agent of the establishment he doesn’t dare nominate the massive cuts to middle class welfare and big business subsidies that are necessary to reform those institutions.

Waiting for the council to fix the local roundabout is nice but it doesn’t address the bigger problems.

It’s up to us to build the new institutions around our local communities and families. This is not a bad thing.

It’s all in the timing

Being first is no guarantee of success if your timing is wrong.

This morning I sat in on a corporate breakfast and heard a well known presenter talk about social media for business owners and managers.

The advice was terrible and what was valid could have come from a 2008 book on business social media marketing.

But the room loved it and obviously the client – a major bank – thinks the speaker’s work is worthwhile. He has a market while many of us who’ve been covering this field for a decade don’t.

Timing is everything in business. Earlier this week stories went around the Internet about how Microsoft could have invented the first smart phone.

Microsoft could well have done it, they tried hard enough with Windows CE devices through the late 1990s and there was also the Apple Newton and the Palm Pilot.

While all these companies could have developed the smartphone in the 1990s it wouldn’t have mattered as neither the infrastructure or the market were ready for it.

Had Microsoft released the smartphone in the mid 199os it would have been useless on the analogue and first generation GSM cellphone networks of the time.

Customers were barely using the web on their personal computers, let alone on their mobile phones, so the smartphone would have been useless and unwanted.

Ten years later things had changed with 3G networks and real consumer demand so Apple seized the gap in the marketplace left by Motorola, Nokia and the other phone manufacturers with the iPhone and now own the market.

Apple weren’t the first to market with a smartphone, just as Microsoft weren’t the first with a Windows-style operating system and Facebook weren’t the first social media platform.

Those who were first to the market stood by while upstarts stole the market they built.

Plenty of people have gone broke when their perfectly correct investment strategies have been mistimed – “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” is often proved true.

That’s the same with the speaker this morning; he’s not the first to discover social media’s business benefits but his timing is impeccable.

Being first is no guarantee of success if your timing is wrong.

Is small business too pessimistic?

The small business sector doesn’t seem to be too confident about the future.

The MYOB March 2012 Business Monitor report is a disturbing document; not only does it show how low confidence is among Australian business owners, it also portrays a group that are making sacrifices for an uncertain future. Is this what small business has come to?

One of the most disturbing aspects of the survey is how long company founders go without a break. With one third reporting they had not taken holidays since starting their business, this statistic is constant regardless of how long the operation has been going.

As somebody who went a decade without taking a holiday, I have a lot of sympathy for business owners in that situation.

What really jumps out is the pessimism of business owners – a quarter don’t expect the economy to improve for at least two years and only 39% expect their revenues to rise.

That business owners would be so negative about the future is disturbing; they should be the most optimistic.

It’s also interesting that more than half are disappointed with levels of support from the government, does anyone expect different?

Quite frankly, if you want money or support from the government then get a job with the public service. I tried that for a few months and there’s plenty of pessimistic people there.

That small business owners are becoming as disillusioned as public servants is a concern for our economy and society. Hopefully it’s not a permanent condition.

Are we prepraed to embrace risk?

The world is a dangerous place, can governments protect us?

It’s safe to say the Transport Security Administration – the  TSA – is one of America’s most reviled organisations.

So it’s notable when a former TSA director publicly describes the system the agency administers as “broken” as Kip Hawley did in the Wall Street Journal on the weekend.

 More than a decade after 9/11, it is a national embarrassment that our airport security system remains so hopelessly bureaucratic and disconnected from the people whom it is meant to protect. Preventing terrorist attacks on air travel demands flexibility and the constant reassessment of threats. It also demands strong public support, which the current system has plainly failed to achieve.

The underlying question in Kip’s article is “are Americans prepared to accept risk?” The indications are that they aren’t.

One of the conceits of the late twentieth Century was we could engineer risk out of our society; insurance, collateral debt obligations, regulations and technology would ensure we and our assets were safe and comfortable from the world’s ravages.

If everything else failed, help was just an emergency phone call away. Usually that help was government funded.

An overriding lessons from the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent terrorist attacks in London and Bali is that these risks are real and evolving.

The creation of the TSA, along with the millions of new laws and billions of security related spending in the US and the rest of the world – much of it one suspect misguided – was to create the myth that the government is eliminating the risk of terrorist attacks.

It’s understandable that governments would do this – the modern media loves blame so it’s a no win situation that politicians and public servant find themselves in.

Should a terrorist smuggle plastic explosive onto a plane disguised as baby food then the government will be vilified and careers destroyed.

Yet we’re indignant that mothers with babies are harassed about the harmless supplies they are carrying with them.

It’s a no-win.

This is not an American problem, in Australia we see the same thing with the public vilification of a group of dam engineers blamed for not holding back the massive floods that inundated Brisbane at the end of 2010.

While we should be critical of governments in the post 9/11 era as almost every administration – regardless of their claimed ideology – saw it as an opportunity to extend their powers and spending, we are really the problem.

Today’s society refuses to accept risk; the risk that bad people will do bad things to us, the risk that storms will batter our homes or the risk that will we do our dough on what we were told was a safe investment.

So we demand “the gummint orta do summint”. And the government does.

The sad thing is the risk doesn’t go away. Risk is like toothpaste, squeeze the tube in one place and it oozes out somewhere else.

While Kip Hawley is right in that we need to change how we evaluate and respond to risk, it assumes that we are prepared to accept that Bad Things Happen regardless of what governments do. It’s dubious that we’re prepared to do that.

Hubris and risk

Technology brings benefits and risks, we need to understand both

Today is the centenary of the Titanic’s tragic sinking. In many ways, the RMS Titanic described the 20th Century conundrum; a blind faith in technology coupled with a struggle to deal with the consequences of those innovations.

It’s worthwhile reflecting on the hubris of those who believed their technology made a ship unsinkable, or those who believed their shipyards would never close and – probably most relevant today – those who believe the sun never sets on their empire.

Technology can liberate our lives which is shown by the fact the average American, European or Australian lives far longer and better than even kings did two centuries ago. But we should never assume these improvements don’t come at a real cost to ourselves, the environment or the ways of life we take for granted today.

Passion and pain

Being passionate about work can bring on its own problems

“Don’t buy the hype about following your passions”, is the advice from business writer and entrepreneur Penelope Trunk in her blog post The career passion myth and how it derails you.

Sonja Lyubomirsky talks about workplace engagement as a result of having control over one’s time and being able to make people feel good. Janitors, she finds, are happiest at work because they can control their workday and they can see immediately how they are helping people. Lawyers, by contrast, are the most universally unhappy, because they have little control over their hours and they are generally dealing with people who hate that they have to hire a lawyer, whatever the lawyer is doing.

Penelope has a good point and it’s something I encountered in my business with passionate staff – the most committed and dedicated are also those most prone to burn out and depression.

In the computer business, good technicians have a combination of two character types; the geek and the concierge.

The concierge attribute like to help people; this the key character trait for successful hospitality and customer service staff.

Geeks are the garage tinkerers; they enjoy being confronted with a technical issue and fixing it. Nothing makes them happier than being confronted with a tough problem and a successful resolution.

What I realised in watching computer techs over time is that both personality traits were driven down by the nature of the industry.

As Penelope points out in her article, lawyers aren’t happy because people don’t want to deal with them; this is common in the repair industries. Customers aren’t happy to see the tech and are suspicious that bills may be being padded out.

This was particularly true during the spyware epidemic of the early 2000s; often an effective fix involved backing up data, reformatting the system and then rebuilding it. Often the technician’s bill was more than the cost of buying a new computer.

Making matters worse was often the spyware infection was due to a family member or trusted employee visiting inappropriate websites. Having to explain to a staid matron that her husband was downloading megabytes of hard core pornography is a diplomatic skill in itself.

Naturally horny husband or frustrated staff member would be on those sites again shortly after the technician’s visit so the freshly cleaned computer would often be infected again and the customer would, understandably, be cranky at the tech for having another expensive call shortly after the first one.

Along with spyware, it’s common that technology products from big vendors don’t deliver on the flash marketing promises or aren’t as reliable as a customer has a right to expect.

This would become the technician’s problem again.

Many of these problems would be outside of the tech’s control which is devastating for one’s inner geek that takes pride in fixing problems.

All of these factors would eventually grind both the geeks and the concierges down and they would become demoralised over time.

For the most passionate this would manifest itself in burn out and often depression. In fact, I started feeling this myself and was one of the reasons I had to step away from the PC Rescue business.

Being passionate about your work is great; but passion and depression are often close together if you feel your love is not being requited.

As an employer, it’s important to watch those passionate staff members as the risk of burn out is real.

Rivers of gold

Can there be a downside to Google’s massive profits?

Google’s announcement that their revenues have increased by 24% over the last year shows the search engine juggernaut keeps rolling on.

It’s tempting to think that Google is untouchable and that’s certainly how it appears when you’re on track to earn forty billion dollars a year and book close to 40% of that income as profits.

On the same day, Sony announced a massive restructure including with 10,000 redundancies and the company’s CEO, Kazuo Hirai, spoke of a sense of urgency to address the once dominant corporation’s drift into irrelevance.

Twenty years the thought of Sony – one of the world’s innovators in consumer electronics – would be wallowing in the wake of companies like Apple and unknown upstarts like Google was unthinkable.

Fortunes are won and quickly lost in a time of great change and this is something we should keep in mind about Google when we look at their rivers of gold.

“Rivers Of Gold” was a term coined to describe the advertising riches of the newspaper industry in the 1980’s. Google’s online advertising is partly responsible for destroying that business.

Today Google is a search engine business that makes its money from the advertising that deserted print media and went online.

It may be that manufacturing mobile phones, running “identity services” disguised as social media platforms or augmented reality spectacles are the future of Google but right now they it’s search and advertising that pays the bills and books the massive profits.

The challenge for Google is not to lose sight of its current core business while building the future rivers of gold.

If Google’s leaders can’t manage this, then they risk following the newspaper industry that they themselves disrupted.

Tracking the end of the consumer society

One statistic illustrates how economies are changing

I’m currently researching a presentation about the retail industry.

One of the things that leaps out when researching consumer behaviour is the savings rate.

For twenty-five years from the early 1980s to mid 2000s, the savings rate collapsed in Western economies; below are the US and Australian rates.

The US Personal savings rate shows the rise of consumerism
US Savings rates 1950 to 2020 – St Louis Federal Reserve
How did the Australian savings rate fall during the consumer boom
Australian Savings Rates 1980 to 2012 – Reserve Bank of Australia

 

The graphs show the same thing; households spent their savings over the 25 years which drove the consumer economy. It’s no accident that period was a good time to be a retailer.

Being on a deadline, I don’t have time to analyse these number further right now, but one thing is clear; most of the consumer boom from the Reagan Years onwards – or the equivalent from Maggie Thatcher or Paul Keating – was driven by households reducing their savings.

That couldn’t last and didn’t. Businesses and governments that are basing their decisions on what worked through the 1980s and 90s are going to struggle in the next decade.

Looking at these figures raises another suspicion – that graphs showing non-real estate investment by businesses and government would show similar declines over the 1980-2005 period.

It might be that golden period of what appeared to economic success was just us living off society’s collective savings.

Bubble economics

The fear of missing out drives most investment booms. Today’s Silicon Valley is no different.

You know you’re in an investment bubble when the pundits declare “we’re not in a bubble”.

A good example of this is Andy Baio’s defence of Facebook’s billion dollar purchase of Instagram.

Justifying the price, Andy compares the Facebook purchase with a number of notorious Silicon Valley buyouts using two metrics; cost per employee and cost per user.

Which proves the old saw of “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

The use of esoteric and barely relevant statistics is one of the characteristics of a bubble; all of a sudden the old metrics don’t apply and, because of the never ending blue sky ahead, valuations can only go up.

Andy’s statistics are good example of this and ignore the three things that really matter when a business is bought.

Current earnings

The simplest test of a business’ viability is how much money is it making? For the vast majority of businesses bought and sold in the world economy, this is the measure.

Whether you’re buying a local newsagency outright or shares in a multinational manufacturer, this is the simplest and most effective measure of a sensible investment.

Future earnings

More complex, but more important, are the prospects of future earnings. That local newsagency or multinational manufacturer might look like a good investment on today’s figures, but it may be in a declining market.

Similarly a business incurring losses at the moment may be profitable under better management. This was the basis of the buyout boom of the 1980s and much of the 1990s.

Most profitable of all is buying into a high growth business, if you can find the next Google or Apple you can retire to the coast. The hope of finding these is what drives much of the current venture capital gold rush.

Strategic reasons

For corporations, there may be good strategic reasons for buying out a business that on paper doesn’t appear to be a good investment.

There’s a whole host of reasons why an organisation would do that, one variation of the Silicon Valley business model is to buy in talented developers who are running their own startups. Google and Facebook have made many acquisitions of small software development companies for that reason.

Fear Of Missing Out

In the Silicon Valley model, the biggest strategic reason for paying over the odds for a business is FOMO – Fear Of Missing Out.

To be fair to the valley, this is true in any bubble – whether it’s for Dutch tulips in the 17th Century or Florida property in the 20th. If you don’t buy now, you’ll miss out on big profits.

When we look at Andy Baio’s charts in Wired, this is what leaps out. Most of the purchases were driven by managements’ fear they were going to miss The Next Big Thing.

The most notorious of all in Andy’s chart is News Corp’s 580 million dollar purchase of MySpace, although there were good strategic reasons for the transaction which Rupert Murdoch’s management team were unable to realise.

eBay’s $2.6 billion acquisition of Skype is probably the best example of Fear Of Missing Out, particularly given they sold it back to the original founders who promptly flicked it to Microsoft. eBay redeems itself though with the strategic purchase of PayPal.

Probably the worst track record goes to Yahoo! who have six of the thirty purchases listed on Andy’s list and not one of them has delivered for Yahoo!’s long suffering shareholders.

The term “greater fools” probably doesn’t come close to describe Yahoo!’s management over the last decade or so.

While Andy Baio’s article seeks to disprove the idea of a Silicon Valley bubble, what he shows is the bubble is alive, big and growing.

One of the exciting things about bubbles is they have a habit of growing bigger than most rational outsiders expect before they burst spectacularly.

We live in exciting times.